Tag: perpetual war

Israel, Ukraine Trying to Expand Wars to Pull U.S. in, Lavrov Says

Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s top diplomat, said in an interview on Saturday that Israel and Ukraine are similar because both countries are looking to expand their wars in hopes to pull Washington into the conflagrations.

Lavrov told Russia’s RT that it was clear that Tel Aviv is the only party interested in the Middle East for a wider war.

“It seems that the only one who wants such a development is Israel,” he said. “Probably the Israeli government, which is rather hard politics-wise, and they do not even hide that.”

He said it is likely that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government wants to exploit the situation and try to use the U.S. to – once and for all – “try to solve all their problems with Hamas and with Hezbollah, and with pro-Iranian groups in Syria and Iraq.”

Keep reading

Pipeline Wars Again

An interesting development. As you can see at a glance from the map, the Druzhba pipeline feeds into the heart of Central Europe and services countries countries that, by and large, are skeptics regarding war on Russia. Czechia is a partial exception, although it is doubtful that the population in general is as anti-Russian as the current president.

1/ The US backed and led ex-state of Ukraine said that it would block Druzhba oil pipeline toward Central and South Europe.
This is the second US sponsored attack on European infrastructure , after the US blew up NordStream pipelines for Germany.

2/ A few corrections :
– Gazprom’s contracts expire the end of 2024. The Russians wills NYET to new ones. It’s over.
-EU-peons have 4 months to decide which one is better:
green energy…US LNG 20 times more expensive …new European Ice Age
Choices… 

My assumption is that this decision was not left up to Ukraine—it was arrived at by NATO and the EU—which is to say, by the Anglo-Zionists. It looks like an effort to force these countries to toe the Anglo-Zionist line in its war on Russia. The result will be devastating for the economies of these countries, but that’s not the point, is it?

My guess is that this development will be added to the scales in Putin’s consideration of whether to bring the war in Ukraine to an end sooner rather than later. It’s fashionable to say that Russia has written off the West, but “the West” isn’t a simple concept. Are the Central European and Balkan countries “the West”? Some may believe they are, but my impression is that they are not so regarded—except for political and military expediency—by the traditional West: Britain, France, Germany, non-Finnish Scandinavia, Spain and Italy. Poland undoubtedly considers itself to be a Western country, but most of the traditional West simply regards Poland as a pain in the ass—with no offense intended on my part.

Keep reading

Has US Supremacy Ended?

America has caught a whiff of a changing world. CIA Director William Burns has grudgingly acknowledged that “the United States… is no longer the only big kid on the geopolitical bloc. And our position at the head of the table isn’t guaranteed.” But America’s dogmatic inability to see past its old paradigm has prevented it from understanding that change. The United States has drifted outside the geopolitical current.

Russia, China and India insist that multipolarity is not a goal on the distant horizon but a current reality. “The trend toward multipolarity in the world is inevitable. It will only intensify. And those who do not understand this and do not follow this trend will lose,” Putin has said. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has called multipolarity “a fact, a geopolitical reality.” “The landscape,” India’s External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar agrees “has now changed irreversibly.”

But in its inability to adapt, the U.S. clings to the battle to prevent the unipolar world’s slip back into bipolarity. The U.S. remains capable only of seeing a world divided into two blocs: it sees every nation that accepts its hegemony as one bloc and every nonaligned nation in the multipolar world that refuses to choose between two sides as the other bloc. The U.S. is incapable of seeing past the bipolar world and mistakes the multipolar reality as the other bloc in a bipolar world.

That is a misconception that prevents the U.S. from aligning itself with the inevitable new reality of the international order. Being unaligned with reality has frustrated American foreign policy.

In the outdated American model, India, the largest country in the world and a growing power, is the weight whose choice of sides will determine which block prevails. Long a partner of the U.S. and a key friend of Russia, India has a foot in both blocs of the world as the U.S. sees it. Bringing India fully into the American camp is a key to U.S. foreign policy.

But the members of the emerging multipolar world do not see the new world as one in which they have to choose sides. The U.S. continues to woo countries with gifts and to threaten countries with sanctions to seduce them into exclusive partnerships. But the outdated U.S. worldview restricts it to desperately courting countries into exclusive relationships that their worldview no longer allows them to enter into.

Keep reading

The Military Tried To Hide Evidence of a Massacre. A Lawsuit Just Exposed It.

The Haditha massacre was one of the worst U.S. actions during the Iraq War. After a roadside bomb killed a Marine in the town of Haditha in November 2005, the rest of his squad shot dead 24 unarmed Iraqi men, women, and children, many of them inside their own homes. The Marine Corps then lied about it, claiming that the victims were all killed by the bomb or by running gun battles with insurgents.

Only dogged reporting by Time Magazine forced the military to open an investigation. No one was ever jailed for the killings or the coverup. Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, the commander of the squad, pleaded guilty to one count of dereliction of duty and was demoted.

The military avoided a public relations disaster, Gen. Michael Hagee would later brag, because graphic photos of the massacre were never published. Until now.

In the Dark, a true crime podcast published by The New Yorker, dedicated its latest season to re-investigating the Haditha massacre. The producers filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the U.S. military’s files on the incident, then sued when the military refused to hand them over.

Officials claimed they were withholding photos of the massacre out of respect for the victims’ families. Two survivors, Khalid Salman Raseef and Khalid Jamal, then went around Haditha collecting signatures for a petition to release the photos. They won the support of 17 relatives of the victims.

The military gave in. On Tuesday, with permission from the survivors, The New Yorker published several unredacted crime scene photos taken by investigators and by Lance Cpl. Ryan Briones and Lance Cpl. Andrew Wright, two Marines who arrived shortly after the massacre.

The FOIA files also included a recording of a 2014 interview between Hagee and a Marine Corps historian, meant for internal use. The massacre “could have been horrific for the Marine Corps if we did not handle that correctly. Another My Lai. Or another Abu Ghraib,” Hagee claims, referring to the My Lai massacre, which helped turn American opinion against the Vietnam War, and the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where U.S. soldiers and CIA officers were photographed torturing and sexually assaulting inmates.

Keep reading

Russia says it will change nuclear doctrine because of Western role in Ukraine

Russia will make changes to its doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons in response to what it regards as Western escalation in the war in Ukraine, state media quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov as saying on Sunday.

The existing nuclear doctrine, set out in a decree by President Vladimir Putin in 2020, says Russia may use nuclear weapons in the event of a nuclear attack by an enemy or a conventional attack that threatens the existence of the state.

Some hawks among Russia’s military analysts have urged Putin to lower the threshold for nuclear use in order to “sober up” Russia’s enemies in the West.

Putin said in June that the nuclear doctrine was a “living instrument” that could change, depending on world events. Ryabkov’s comments on Sunday were the clearest statement yet that changes would indeed be made.

“The work is at an advanced stage, and there is a clear intent to make corrections,” state news agency TASS cited Ryabkov as saying.

He said the decision is “connected with the escalation course of our Western adversaries” in connection with the Ukraine conflict.

Moscow accuses the West of using Ukraine as a proxy to wage war against it, with the aim of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia and breaking it apart.

The United States and its allies deny that, saying they are helping Ukraine defend itself against a colonial-style war of aggression by Russia.

Keep reading

Globalists Are Trying To Escalate The Ukraine War Into WWIII Before The US Election

The purpose of NATO involvement in the Ukraine War has, to me, always appeared obvious. Ukraine has nothing to do with the interests of the western public, nothing to do with the security of Europe and nothing to do with the economic advancement of the United States. Yet, NATO and the globalists have been politically interfering in the region since at least 2014 and preparing the ground for an eventual war with Russia.

To be clear, I don’t favor Russia any more than I favor Ukraine. The Kremlin has long had its own ties to the globalists, as I have outlined in numerous articles. How deep those ties go is up for debate – Maybe the honeymoon is over and Russia is truly done trying to get a seat at the globalist table. What I do know is that western elites want a world war and they have done everything in their power to start one.

Look at it this way: What if you were to make a list of all the covert and overt NATO operations in Ukraine and then flipped script? What if Russia was pursuing all the same agendas of destabilization, control and arms proliferation in Mexico (as the Soviets did in Cuba in the 1960s)?  If the US invaded Mexico preemptively it would be completely understandable.

Whether or not Putin is acting in the best interests of Russia doesn’t really matter. The war was inevitable anyway because NATO made sure it was impossible to avoid. But what purpose does such a proxy war serve? Well, it doesn’t serve much purpose at all…unless the goal is to instigate a wider world war between the East and the West. In that scenario the globalists benefit greatly.

They get a scapegoat for the economic collapse they’ve already set in motion. They multiply the global fear factor and make the public desperate for the political elites to step in and solve all their problems. And, they can get rid of their domestic enemies (conservatives and patriots) by accusing them of “working with Russia” to undermine the war effort if they dare to rebel against unconstitutional mandates.

Beyond that, they also get an opportunity to send young men (who might rebel) off to the meat grinder in Ukraine so that there’s no new generation of freedom fighters to deal with. World War III is a win-win-win for the Davos crowd, as long as it doesn’t go full-on nuclear holocaust and wipe out their carefully crafted surveillance states.

But how do they turn the proxy war into a world war without looking like the bad guys? That’s the trick, isn’t it?

Keep reading

WWIII: Ukraine Strikes Infrastructure Targets Deep Inside Russia Overnight, Including Mosocw, Tver

Ukraine launched multiple drone strikes overnight on 01 September 2024, targeting critical infrastructure in Russia, including power plants and a refinery in the Moscow and Tver regions.

According to Russian authorities, explosions and blazes were reported at the Moscow Oil Refinery, the Konakovo Power Station (Tver Region). An unsuccessful attempt was also made to attack the Kashira power plant.

Russia’s Defence Ministry claimed that 158 drones were destroyed across several regions, including Moscow, Tver, Kursk, Bryansk, Voronezh, Belgorod, Kaluga, and Lipetsk. No casualties were reported.

This escalation follows Ukraine’s increased use of drone technology to strike at Russian infrastructure, with Kyiv seeking U.S. approval to use Western-supplied weapons more extensively inside Russia.

A retaliatory response from Moscow is expected following these drone strikes across Russia.

Keep reading

Shame: Afghanistan withdrawal politics miss the point of everything

On the three-year anniversary of the last U.S. soldier leaving Afghanistan, and with a presidential election looming, Afghanistan has briefly resurfaced in American discourse.

With a narrow focus on one month out of 238, and 13 deaths out of 2,219 American lives lost in Afghanistan, our leaders will once again miss the point. The spotlight will be on U.S. politics — not Afghanistan, not veterans, not Gold Star families, and certainly not Afghans. The goal is deflection, not reflection.

The harsh reality is that after 20 years our battlefield successes amounted to little. When the Trump administration entered negotiations with the Taliban, both Washington and our longtime Taliban adversaries shared the same goal: America out. President Biden soon decided to follow suit, leading to a haphazardly managed withdrawal—just another chapter in a poorly executed war strategy.

Lawmakers will fixate on the final moments because facing two decades of failure doesn’t suit them.

There are important questions that should be asked in regards to Washington’s failures in Afghanistan. Did we choose the wrong partners at the start? Was our distraction in Iraq fatal? Could we have negotiated with the Taliban sooner, or withdrawn in winter when the Taliban’s conquest of cities would have been harder? What if Bagram air base had been the final exit point, not Kabul? Why did we negotiate with the Taliban, offering them legitimacy and concessions, instead of simply leaving?

Why, after 20 years, did we fail to “know our enemy” or appreciate the intricacies of Afghanistan’s tribes and cultures? More importantly, could we have ever understood?

Some will call it a lost cause from the start — a view I understand, despite its simplicity. Others will misread the lessons to craft new intervention strategies, hoping to change history once again, albeit with better timing and execution.

Conducting after-action reviews of major U.S. military missions is both necessary and a duty. The Afghanistan War Commission and SIGAR are taking this seriously, with their findings available in public reports. Veteran journalists and analysts are also publishing books that tackle the toughest questions of our twenty-year war. However, these reports and books are unlikely to be read by those who cynically exploit our Afghan failures and the blood of U.S. soldiers for their own agendas. Whether these lessons are applied to future conflicts remains to be seen.

Keep reading

Friendly Fire or Defective Old Plane? How Ukraine Lost Its First F-16 Jet and Famed Pilot

One of the first Ukrainian F-16 jets crashed on August 26, the Ukrainian Air Force confirmed on Thursday.

Ukrainian MP Maryana Bezuglaya claimed the F-16 was hit by Ukraine’s Patriot anti-aircraft missile system “due to a lack of coordination between units.”

When Were the First F-16s Delivered to Ukraine?

The first batch of six of the promised 80 F-16s arrived in Ukraine at the beginning of August.

It’s unclear who exactly provided the first batch: Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway earlier vowed to provide the Kiev regime with them.

US President Joe Biden first authorized NATO’s European allies to send F-16s to Ukraine in August 2023.

How Much Does the F-16 Cost?

The US-made F-16 that was delivered to Ukraine can cost up to $60 million depending on the configuration and possible upgrades, according to some estimates.

As per the Wall Street Journal, many of the F-16s promised to Ukraine are second-hand and have decades of flying time already.

Keep reading

Israeli airstrike on humanitarian aid convoy leaves five dead

The Israeli military carried out airstrikes on a humanitarian aid convoy in Gaza on 29 August, killing five employees of the transport company working with the US-based aid group that organized it, The Guardian reported on 30 August.

The convoy was organized by the NGO Anera. It was carrying medical supplies and fuel to an Emirati-run hospital in Rafah, a city on the Gaza–Egypt border.

Its route had been coordinated in advance with the Israeli military under a deconfliction process intended to prevent aid vehicles from being bombed.

Anera’s Palestine country director, Sandra Rasheed, told The Guardian, “This is a shocking incident. The convoy, which was coordinated by Anera and approved by Israeli authorities, included an Anera employee who was fortunately unharmed.”

“Tragically, several individuals, all employed by the transportation company we work with, were killed in the attack. They were in the first vehicle of the convoy,” Rasheed added.

The Israeli military confirmed the route had been coordinated but claimed its forces struck armed men seeking to hijack the convoy.

Just hours before the airstrike, Israeli soldiers opened fire on a World Food Programme (WFP) vehicle clearly marked with UN insignia. Israeli forces fired 10 bullets into the windows of the vehicle as it approached an army checkpoint in the Wadi Gaza area.

Because the vehicle was armored with reinforced glass, none of the passengers were killed or injured.

Cindy McCain, the head of the WFP, called the shooting “totally unacceptable.”

Keep reading